Author
Topic: Tournament ruling (Read 10077 times)

Everyone folds to the button and he asks the big blind "how much you got there"? and the BB replies "about 350 (blinds are 50/100) and so the button says "I call 350" and simultaneously throws 350 in the pot. Do you make the chips stay in or only allow him to call the 100 bet he was facing?

Since he said, "I call", I would rule that he can only call the BB amount. This leaves all options open to the BB, he can check or raise if he wants to. I would also issue a warning. That solves the obvious angle shot. If he does it again, at any time in the event, I would issue at least a 2 round penalty.

Chet, I'm not sure I agree with you on this one. There are a couple of problems I have with not allowing the button to put 350 into the pot. The fact that he asked how much the BB had would indicate the intention of a raise and more convincing is the simultaneous push of 350 in chips. However, I don't know why he would say "I call 350" when he should have said raise. This is a perfect spot for the floor to rule either way. I might consider the experience (if known) of the player on the button and his or her reputation. There is another issue that was not mentioned. Was there a player in the SB position?

If the button player had said "Raise" and pushed out only 100 chips wouldn't you require him to at least put 200 chips into the pot? The reason being that the verbal declaration of "Raise" would be binding per TDA Rule 35, specifically the second sentence.

If the verbal declaration is binding in the above instance, why would it not be binding in the original example?

I believe that once the player said, "I Call", anything else is immaterial. He can only call the BB.

"I call" were the first words spoken by the player, therefore the button must call 100, even though he followed with a "I call 350" the bet the button was faced with was 100, anything said afterwards is irrelevant.

Stuart, Wait a minute. What about the player that pushes the 350 simultaneously. Are you saying that the verbal overrides his action? It could go either way, I agree but the factors I mentioned could be taken into consideration.

Chet: To answer your question; If the button player had said "Raise" and pushed out only 100 chips wouldn't you require him to at least put 200 chips into the pot?.... My answer would be yes, unless he pushed his 100 in first. TDA rule #35 says verbal in turn is binding but it also says chips placed in the pot must remain in the pot. It does not clearly define the situation of simultaneous action. Like I said earlier, this is a perfect example for the use of rule #1. A penalty might be harsh but, I think a lesson would be learned.

where a player pushes 350 simultaneously whilst saying "I call 350" this would be governed by the house rules on the method deployed for betting and raising (forward motion V chip release), for example ours is chip release, therefore it would still be a call of 100, as the chips have not yet been released at the point the player stated "I call 350" although we do have a condition that a reaction caused by forward motion may be binding. Where forward motion is used as the method for betting and raising it would likely be a raise to 350 total, although it would be highly dependant on the situation.

Another careful consideration must be given to what the intent was, the intent was to make the bet 350 total, if the SB has folded and the BB already has his chips in by the time we get to the table I would likely let the unclear action go as a raise, as removal of the 250 would not be in the best interests of the game - again this returns to forward motion causing a re-action. If I was called to the table and the unclear bet was still awaiting clarification and the BB player has not yet acted, or indeed the SB, I would rule it a call on most occasions, in order to protect the SB and BB from the actions of the Button player, the key for me would be to protect the SB and BB whatever way I call it.

I would agree that the first declaration is binding. We had this happen to an extreme one night. Player 1 was finishing a story about a hand to Player 2 while waiting on the action to get to him so he could fold. Player B asked him what his bet was in the story hand and the instant the action got to Player 1 he said "All-In." While this was intended to be an answer to Player B's question, the timing was perfect and he was held to his declaration of "All-In." Unfortunately, the next active player immediately called before Player 1 could even try to explain it wasn't a bet. Player 1 was held to an "All-In" bet with his 9,2 os which didn't hold up to KK.

I regularly call down players for using the string-raise phrase, "I call and I raise." The first declaration statement stands. What follows cannot modify the original declaration. In the example it seems that the player assumed the blind was going to put in the full amount on some kind of a tacit all-in agreement. This doesn't create a situation in which the following statement would create a binding modification to the original declaration of "I Call."

Yes, we all know what the next move is, but until the following card is dealt, the player can only call, IMO.

Thought that I would take another look at this interesting post from a while ago. This original situation had responses from several of the top posters (myself included). I can understand how most did not agree with my decision. However, the last post by Pepper_W describes a situation where the intent of the player (holding 7, deuce off), was forced to go all-in is going too far, don't you think? I understand that sometimes players need to learn a lesson, but was that really in the best interest of the game? I wonder how that player felt, after being eliminated from the tournament on an unintentional forced bet? I also would like to know if he ever returned to that cardroom?

With respect to the original post, this is an example of a classic verbal string bet, no different from "I call the 100 and raise all-in". This is definitely a call in my books.

With respect to the "all-in" spoken as part of a story and then acted on by a subsequent player, I think there is definitely room for the TD to use his or her discretion here. It's not much different if the person said "hmm... Is he all-in?" referring to another player, and the question being misinterpreted as a statement. Yes, by using "the magic words", there is always a risk that the TD may rule it as a bet like in pepper's example, but if it is unclear whether or not the all-in was truly the player's intention, the Dealer should ask for clarification, and the TD still should have discretion to give a warning but not hold the bet binding. The mere fact that the subsequent player acts does not, by itself, make the all-in binding - the calling player has some responsibility to hold off if there is some doubt as to a preceding player's action.

Everyone folds to the button and he asks the big blind "how much you got there"? and the BB replies "about 350 (blinds are 50/100) and so the button says "I call 350" and simultaneously throws 350 in the pot. Do you make the chips stay in or only allow him to call the 100 bet he was facing?

For those that did not allow the button to bet 350, how do you rule if the button player said: #1. " I bet 350" instead or #2. "make it 350"

How would you rule; if there were no SB player and action was between the button and BB only? Would head to head make a difference?

Question #1, Button says "I bet 350" or "Make it 350". In my opinion these are not ambiguous statements and I would rule he has raised and the bet facing the SB is a total of 350. In the original example, he said "I call 350". He cannot call an amount that he is not facing, hence he can only check. He did not say raise or anything else that can be interpreted as an acceptable term so I would rule he can only check.

Question #2, Same answer. I do not see where heads up or not makes absolutely any difference in ambiguous statements. An unclear statement is an unclear statement is an unclear statement no matter how many times you repeat it.

I can understand your stance on #1 but, for #2, would you consider (because there are only two players), asking the opposing player if they would allow the raise, or object to it? As you know, I've always been in favor of a separate set of rules for head to head, mainly because collusion is not an issue.

I have actually been in a situation (while dealing head's up) where a player made a string-type raise where I stopped the player and told him that his raise would not be allowed because it was a "string raise," only to be stopped by the opposing player, who said; "that's okay, let him raise" The string raiser insisted he wanted to raise, so I allowed it!

My experience, as limited as it is, as a TD, has been with smaller venues, typically bar type events. As such I have always tried to keep the rules as close to those found in our local mid-west casinos as I could. That said, I am not aware of any substantial differences in my local casinos for heads up play vs normal. Hence my answer.

Granted those are those who believe that virtually "all things are allowed" in heads up play and it appears to me you are in that camp. I am not.

I have no problem with your take on this situation. As long as you are consistent with your rules your player's will keep coming back. As far as your experience being limited to bar type events, I feel they are just as "challenging" as any casino tournament.

I'm really not in favor of "anything goes" for heads-up but, I will relax the rules a bit, if it doesn't slow down the action and there are no objections.